# CC "True or False" in Photos



## quo155 (Aug 10, 2010)

I have some questions for you ECCS...

This is not a pop quiz...I am giving my opinion on some cigars that were considered "CC" when given to me, while asking _you_ at the same time.

Thanks for any input!

1.) This is "False"...came strait out of the typical glass lid box of 6. I think it's a fake, for one...Cohiba does not do this packaging and two...the rows of white squares are not aligned perfectly...what say you?



















2.) True?



















3.) True?



















4.) ? as I can find no information on these. I have searched to no avail. and can find anything in this packaging. They were given to me by a late, yet experienced BOTL that "knew his stuff"...as CC. However, I don't find them anywhere...what say you?


----------



## E Dogg (Mar 23, 2011)

I know the cohibas are fake, no doubt in my mind....

I'm curious about the Monte as I have 2 right now and they look just like yours. I can't notice a triple cap on mine and yours look to be the same. But someone mentioned that the cigar is too cheap for anyone to counterfeit, so.... I dunno

The others I have no idea on so I'm looking forward to what others have to say.


----------



## quo155 (Aug 10, 2010)

E Dogg said:


> I know the cohibas are fake, no doubt in my mind....
> 
> I'm curious about the Monte as I have 2 right now and they look just like yours. I can't notice a triple cap on mine and yours look to be the same. But someone mentioned that the cigar is too cheap for anyone to counterfeit, so.... I dunno
> 
> The others I have no idea on so I'm looking forward to what others have to say.


Thanks Eric! The photo of the Monte is poor...but it does have a triple cap...and that's a good point, they are too cheap to counterfeit..._*or are they!?*_


----------



## JGD (Mar 2, 2009)

1. Fake.
2. I honestly can't tell by the picture.
3. Looks real, but I can't give you a 100%
4. Not a real CC. I have never heard or seen these before. They are not vintage because they indicate Habano 2000 - which was a strain of leaf.


----------



## bdw1984 (May 6, 2009)

The only two that I can speak on for certain are 1 and 4. For cigar 1, there was no 2010 EL Cohiba and the band is fake. Cigar 4 is a cheap, non-Cuban cigar. The pictures on 2&3 aren't clear enough to make a determination. Is there anyway that you can measure the length and ring gauge of those two smokes? That may help.


----------



## Habano (Jul 5, 2010)

Well I pretty much agree with some of the others here....

1. Fake as you can get.
2. Need better shots of the cigar and specs if possible.
3. Same situation for picture number 2.
4. Again fake as number one.


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

The Monte looks good and the Partagas look good!:second:
The rest are garbage!:clock:


----------



## dav0 (Feb 7, 2011)

#4 is a NC and as another poster pointed out the "Habana 2000" refers to the wrapper leaf. Get em' lots of places online:

http://www.jrcigars.com/index.cfm?page=cigars&brand=BOCK Y CA


----------



## sligub (Apr 6, 2011)

1. Fake
2. Real I think though tough to tell from pics
3. Real I think though tough to tell from pics
4. Fake though bock y ca was a massive cuban brand about 130 years ago, was the first company to use a band to market themself.


----------



## quo155 (Aug 10, 2010)

Thanks for the input so far...due to the photos being bad (new phone)...I took some more...as best as I could with the phone. I hope these help you see them better (the main two in question) and the size.


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

TonyBrooklyn said:


> The Monte looks good and the Partagas look good!:second:
> The rest are garbage!:clock:


oke:oke:oke:oke:oke:


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

bdw1984 said:


> The only two that I can speak on for certain are 1 and 4. For cigar 1, there was no 2010 EL Cohiba and the band is fake. Cigar 4 is a cheap, non-Cuban cigar. The pictures on 2&3 aren't clear enough to make a determination. Is there anyway that you can measure the length and ring gauge of those two smokes? That may help.


Yep, my thoughts all.

The Bock y ca is made in the D.R. so obviously not a cuban.


----------



## APBTMarcel (Mar 9, 2011)

Agree, lol


----------



## Herf N Turf (Dec 31, 2008)

Yup yup. Think the esteemed BOTL above have it right.

Monte and Part-AY-Gah look good.

Faux-heeba est faux

Bock no Cubano


----------



## quo155 (Aug 10, 2010)

Herf N Turf said:


> Yup yup. Think the esteemed BOTL above have it right.
> 
> Monte and Part-AY-Gah look good.
> 
> ...


Thanks for everyone's help!

:spy: Hopefully, this little thread can help others as well...whom are looking into the *DARK SIDE!!!* :spy:


----------



## Leafs42084 (Sep 15, 2010)

does anyone else think the colour on the montecristo band is a bit too dark?


----------



## HydroRaven (Oct 10, 2010)

Like others have said, the Monte and the Party look good from the pics you gave us, but if they come from the same place as the Cohiba, then they're 100% fake.


----------



## bpegler (Mar 30, 2006)

Leafs42084 said:


> does anyone else think the colour on the montecristo band is a bit too dark?


There are literally dozens of shades of Cuban cigar wrappers. They should be consistent within the box, because that is how they are sorted in the factory. In fact it is not uncommon for cigars in the same box to have been rolled by different rollers. That explains in part why cigars in one box can have markedly different profiles.

If the shades don't match, that's a bigger problem.


----------



## quo155 (Aug 10, 2010)

The Monte and the Party came from two different reputable sources, having nothing to do with the Cohibacrap. 

I believe these two to be 100% authentic, but I did want others to chime in with opinions...I knew the Cohibacrap was 110% fake...and I really did not know about the Bocybastidge.

Ahhh...to continued sage of "real" vs. "fake! :fencing:

I love reading your suggestions and comments as this thread is teaching me a lot about the art of CC! Thanks! :thumb:


----------



## Leafs42084 (Sep 15, 2010)

bpegler said:


> There are literally dozens of shades of Cuban cigar wrappers. They should be consistent within the box, because that is how they are sorted in the factory. In fact it is not uncommon for cigars in the same box to have been rolled by different rollers. That explains in part why cigars in one box can have markedly different profiles.
> 
> If the shades don't match, that's a bigger problem.


I said the band, not the wrapper


----------



## JGD (Mar 2, 2009)

Leafs42084 said:


> does anyone else think the colour on the montecristo band is a bit too dark?


I don't think so at all, it looks like the post 2006 band in bad lighting. In fact I have Montes with really dark bands that are 100% legit.


----------



## quo155 (Aug 10, 2010)

JGD said:


> I don't think so at all, it looks like the post 2006 band in bad lighting. In fact I have Montes with really dark bands that are 100% legit.


Yes...VERY BAD LIGHTING! I am sorry for the quality of these pics...this is a new phone that does not take near the quality (though same manufacture and MP) of my older phone!

However, knowing that the Monte bands can sometimes differ in color...and still be legit...do others agree?


----------



## Herf N Turf (Dec 31, 2008)

Well, like Jim said, the bands are darker now than in days gone by. Like I said, it looks legit to me. The bands can vary somewhat in shade.


----------



## Stinkdyr (Jun 19, 2009)

The Bock are not made in cuba, are they?
The others look real to me. But the proof is in the smoking.
How did they taste?


----------



## quo155 (Aug 10, 2010)

Stinkdyr said:


> The Bock are not made in cuba, are they?
> The others look real to me. But the proof is in the smoking.
> How did they taste?


I have not smoked any of these yet...but looking to try them all pretty soon!

We will see...how that pudding tastes...NC or CC...


----------



## Habano (Jul 5, 2010)

quo155 said:


> I have not smoked any of these yet...but looking to try them all pretty soon!
> 
> We will see...how that pudding tastes...NC or CC...


Once you get a lot of CC pudding, you may find yourself never going back to the NC pudding.


----------



## quo155 (Aug 10, 2010)

Starbuck said:


> Once you get a lot of CC pudding, you may find yourself never going back to the NC pudding.


That's what I hear...and I am looking forward to new "pudding"...just letting them rest a little...then I will review the Fake CC's and CC's here...(That is if the fakes don't kill me first!)


----------

